Is premarital sex moral or immoral?

[Sand Dancer]

You're desperate to believe it's false, so sodomy can be approved.

Wow, you're not a very nice person.

 

[nPeace]

This was for the poster who linked to an article saying that young guys who masturbate have a higher risk of prostate cancer. I just posted something refuting it. For informational purpose.

The article refuted nothing. Perhaps you need to read it...again?
Also read the second link the of the said poster in the same post.

 

[Sand Dancer]

The article refuted nothing. Perhaps you need to read it...again?
Also read the second link the of the said poster in the same post.

Then why did you say that young guys shouldn't masturbate and should wait until they are older? The second study did not say that.

 

[Spartan]

Wow, you're not a very nice person.

Wow, you're very judgmental!

 

[nPeace]

My wife and I have watched porn together, and then we've made passionate love. ...

So?
There has been a number of cases where a person sexually assaulted a family member (very young), after watching porn, on their home computer.
That was in response to your post...
If somebody were occupied with looking at pornography on his home computer, then he would not be in public where he could sexually assault anybody.

What's the difference between watching porn, and then having mad passionate sex, and Menophilia - or watching someone stabbed repeatedly, and then having mad passionate sex?

Of course they vary in extremes, but they are all the same - sex fetishist. Compare Urolagnia.

 

[Spartan]

They use the Bible for their info. I meant objective evidence. And most likely there was a traveling religious teacher named Jesus.

How do you know what they use for info? You haven't read the books. What's more, having read them, I can tell you there's tons of information in them that isn't from the Bible.

And by the way, I challenge you to show me person, place or event in the GOSPELS (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) that has been shown to be fictitious? Cite the scripture and make your case.

But if you want to remain in the dark about that, just continue as you are now.

 

[Earthtank]

Yes, premarital sex is immoral. All the fatherless children, STDs, rapes and plethora of things that come out purely due to the desire of nothing more than just "casual sex", prove my point. Men and women treating each other like nothing but flesh for fun will never lead to anything good.

 

[Sand Dancer]

How do you know what they use for info? You haven't read the books. What's more, having read them, I can tell you there's tons of information in them that isn't from the Bible.

And by the way, I challenge you to show me person, place or event in the GOSPELS (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) that has been shown to be fictitious? Cite the scripture and make your case.

But if you want to remain in the dark about that, just continue as you are now.

I have read most of those books when I was Christian, thank you very much. The gospels can't even agree with each other.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Wow, you're very judgmental!

I have read your posts...

 

[Spartan]

I have read your posts...

Who cares?

 

[Spartan]

I have read most of those books when I was Christian, thank you very much. The gospels can't even agree with each other.

That's because you haven't researched those alleged discrepancies.

Did you know that a great many of them disappear if you place them on a timeline (how many angels appeared at the tomb? Answer: first one appeared, then moments or minutes later another one appeared)?

Third, you obviously haven't studied the harmonies of the Gospels. Example: Greenleaf’s Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts

Fourth: There are no discrepancies regarding the resurrection of Jesus. All four Gospels and various epistles confirm it. Any alleged discrepancies involve events that happened AFTER the resurrection (who moved the stone, etc.).

Lastly, you were unable to cite even one fictitious element in the Gospels.

The issue is clear: What studying you might have done was superficial in nature, and did not go into much depth. I have forty years and two theological degrees in the subject, and I know an A student from one who is doing superficial work. It shows up in posts like yours, where you don't have an understanding of various things like I've noted above. But that's ok. You don't have to remain as you are. You can actually apply yourself to dig deeper.

 

[nPeace]

Sorry - what are you talking about?

I'm talking about what you said.

Not only do I think premarital sex is perfectly fine, I think that abstaining from sex until marriage is generally a bad idea.

When a couple abstains until marriage:

- it can create pressure to marry just to have sex.
- it robs the couple of knowing whether they're compatible in an important way before they actually make the commitment of marriage.

It also perpetuates the idea that marriage is a breeding arrangement and not a partnership based on love.

All in all, I'd say that a couple that abstains until marriage is setting themselves up for a higher risk of divorce. Because of this, I think that this means that teaching abstinence is generally incompatible - or at least problematic - with upholding the sanctity of marriage.

Let me know what you don't understand.
You said... I think that abstaining from sex until marriage is generally a bad idea.

Note - sex until marriage. Why?
Because... you said...
- it can create pressure to marry just to have sex.
- it robs the couple of knowing whether they're compatible in an important way before they actually make the commitment of marriage.

What's the focus then? Sex.
It seems something is wrong with being married to someone you are attracted to because of their qualities - not look,,, That can be anyone, including a serial rapist and killer.
If one is not compatible sexually (in an important way) - what does that mean? Good in bed? - then they should not get married. So have a bang before you decide. In fact, make it a good few. If you are not happy, move along. Find someone else, and repeat, until you decide, now I want to settle down.

That's what I am talking about.
I said...
So it's lusting after the sex organs and the pleasure one can derive, rather than the love of the person.
In that case, why is such a person even thinking of marriage?

I don't know how you arrived at this belief. It sounds like your idea.
It also perpetuates the idea that marriage is a breeding arrangement and not a partnership based on love.

I don't know how you arrived at this either.
All in all, I'd say that a couple that abstains until marriage is setting themselves up for a higher risk of divorce.

The Science of Cohabitation: A Step Toward Marriage, Not a Rebellion
On average, researchers concluded that couples who lived together before they tied the knot saw a 33 percent higher rate of divorce than those who waited to live together until after they were married.

The connection between divorce and living together before marriage
....etc., etc.

 

[SugarOcean]

Hey everyone. I wanted to debate about whether or not premarital sex is moral or immoral. I will take the Catholic side since I am Catholic. We believe that premarital sex is immoral. We believe that it is gravely sinful which means that if it is done with full consent of the will and knowledge of the gravity of the sin, it becomes a mortal sin which can send you to Hell.

Anyway, we Catholics believe that sexual intercourse has two purposes: procreation and the union of the spouses which have to be one man and one woman as we don't believe in same-sex marriages. Premarital sex is often violating the first purpose as it is often contracepted sex. Premarital sex always violates the second purpose since the two having sex with each other are not married.

We believe that the Bible speaks out against premarital sex but I will not quote all of the citations from the Bible about it at this time.

So, what do you think? Do you think premarital sex is moral or immoral? Why or why not?

It was a lot of fun back in the days when dinosaurs ruled the earth and the tar pits were a threat rather than a tourist attraction and I was single.
Depends on the religion or faith one holds as to the actual answer.

In the Bible there is no scripture per say that emphatically condemns pre-marital sex. That's because in the OT times and as in those scriptures, if someone had sex they were betrothed. And the man was to meet the bride price for the girl he had intercourse with.
So there was no premarital sex because sex prior to marriage led to marriage. Whereas, if it was said to be rape, lets say the man refused to marry the girl after the act, the man had to pay the girls father 40 pieces of silver and take her as wife. Or, they would both be killed.

 

[nPeace]

Then why did you say that young guys shouldn't masturbate and should wait until they are older? The second study did not say that.

I don't recall saying anything even near that. Where did I say that?
Also there i no conclusive evidence on the different opinions.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I don't recall saying anything even near that. Where did I say that?
Also there i no conclusive evidence on the different opinions.

Someone did, maybe not you then. Sorry.

 

[nPeace]

Someone did, maybe not you then. Sorry.

Thank you.

 

[Deeje]

In the Bible there is no scripture per say that emphatically condemns pre-marital sex. That's because in the OT times and as in those scriptures, if someone had sex they were betrothed. And the man was to meet the bride price for the girl he had intercourse with.

That is not how it was...sorry, that is just twisted nonsense.

The Bible mentions both fornication and adultery.....both were immoral and against God's law.
The Greek word for "fornication" is "por·neiʹa" and relates to “prostitution, unchastity, fornication, of every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse.” This is not just adultery but any kind of sexual activity outside of scriptural marriage.
A man could not have sex with his betrothed until they were married, which in Bible times consisted of a marriage feast with invited guests for those who could afford it, or a procession in which a husband prepared a home for his new wife and walked to her home to escort her to her new abode. The procession route was often lined with well wishers who were all witnesses to the marriage. As in the case of Mary and Joseph, a betrothal did not mean having sex. Mary was betrothed to Joseph when the angel Gabriel announced the coming arrival of Jesus. Mary's first response was how could I have a child when I have had no relations with a man?

Where do you get these weird ideas? Are they yours, or did you glean them off some other deluded person?

So there was no premarital sex because sex prior to marriage led to marriage. Whereas, if it was said to be rape, lets say the man refused to marry the girl after the act, the man had to pay the girls father 40 pieces of silver and take her as wife. Or, they would both be killed.

Again, this is twisted rubbish.

The "bride price" paid to the girl's father, was to compensate for the loss of his daughter's services to the family, which were often large and everyone contributed to doing their share of the chores....unlike today.

"Under the Mosaic Law, a man committing fornication with an unengaged girl was required to marry the girl and to pay her father the purchase price for brides (50 silver shekels), and he could not divorce her all his days. Even if her father refused to give him the girl in marriage, the man had to pay the purchase price to the father. (Exodus 22:16, 17; Deuteronomy 22:28, 29) However, if the girl was engaged, the man was to be stoned to death. If the girl screamed when she was attacked, she was not to be punished, but if the engaged girl failed to scream (thereby indicating consent), she was also put to death. (Deuteronomy 22:23-27)."

Fornication — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

 

[SugarOcean]

That is not how it was...sorry, that is just twisted nonsense.

That is not how it was...sorry, that is just twisted nonsense.

The Bible mentions both fornication and adultery.....both were immoral and against God's law.
The Greek word for "fornication" is "por·neiʹa" and relates to “prostitution, unchastity, fornication, of every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse.” This is not just adultery but any kind of sexual activity outside of scriptural marriage.
A man could not have sex with his betrothed until they were married, which in Bible time consisted of a marriage feast with invited guests for those who could afford it, or a procession in which a husband prepared a home for his new wife and walked to her home to escort her to her new abode. The procession route was often lined with well wishers who were all witnesses to the marriage. As in the case of Mary and Joseph, a betrothal did not mean having sex. Mary was betrothed to Joseph when the angel Gabriel announced the coming arrival of Jesus. Mary's first response was how could I have a child when I have had no relations with a man?

Where do you get these weird ideas? Are they yours, or did you glean them off some other deluded person?

You're one Hell of a witness example of Jehovah now aren't you?

Again, this is twisted rubbish.

You're so cocked and ready to spew sarcasm and hatred that you don't even bother to read the post of the one you're targeting. As your post below proves. The only error I made was being off by ten pieces of silver. Fifty rather than forty. That's twenty more pieces of silver than what Judas received for selling out Christ to the temple elders.

The "bride price" paid to the girl's father, was to compensate for the loss of his daughter's services to the family, which were often large and everyone contributed to doing their share of the chores....unlike today.

"Under the Mosaic Law, a man committing fornication with an unengaged girl was required to marry the girl and to pay her father the purchase price for brides (50 silver shekels), and he could not divorce her all his days. Even if her father refused to give him the girl in marriage, the man had to pay the purchase price to the father. (Exodus 22:16, 17; Deuteronomy 22:28, 29) However, if the girl was engaged, the man was to be stoned to death. If the girl screamed when she was attacked, she was not to be punished, but if the engaged girl failed to scream (thereby indicating consent), she was also put to death. (Deuteronomy 22:23-27)."

Fornication — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

I tell you what, you save face by not acting the arse spewing your venom toward me so as to demonstrate what JW's believe about acting Christ like knowing I'll not be reading you ever again so as to witness your evil on my page. This way you can example your fallen nature due to your cult affiliation without response from this one you have a hate-on for.

 

[SugarOcean]

Who cares?

You just proved you do.

 

[Deeje]

You're one Hell of a witness example of Jehovah now aren't you?

Why? Because you don't like to be proven wrong? You spout absolute rubbish as if its unassailable truth.
You stand corrected. Don't like it?.....then prove me wrong.

You're so cocked and ready to spew sarcasm and hatred that you don't even bother to read the post of the one you're targeting. As your post below proves. The only error I made was being off by ten pieces of silver. Fifty rather than forty. That's twenty more pieces of silver than what Judas received for selling out Christ to the temple elders.

Well I guess one of us is spewing .....if you want to post things that are not true, be prepared to be corrected.
Throwing a tantrum won't make what you wrote correct.

I tell you what, you save face by not acting the arse spewing your venom toward me so as to demonstrate what JW's believe about acting Christ like knowing I'll not be reading you ever again so as to witness your evil on my page. This way you can example your fallen nature due to your cult affiliation without response from this one you have a hate-on for.

Correcting you is not hating you. This is a trifle over reactionary since this is not even your thread. If you can't stand the heat....you know the rest. Its a public forum...if you post rubbish I will call you out on it.